Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 19, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0123551 to Fritchie (cited by applicant) in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN209032992 to Gu (cited by applicant) and U.S. Patent No. 8,485,577 to Lammi et al.
Fritchie teaches a system for tracking vessels in automated laboratory analyzers by radio frequency identification (See title).
The system of Fritchie includes RFID tags 18 on containers 14 as shown in Fig. 1. The RFID tags can be read-write microchips, that allow for reading and writing information from/on to the tags. [0034]
Fritchie provides antennas that communicate wireless with the tags. The antennas are located near the containers 14 for reading/writing information from/on to the RFID tags. [0060].
Information on the RFID tags can include identification of the contents of the containers. [0017]
Fritchie teaches that the use of a radio frequency identification system also enables proper physical orientation of containers, i.e., the system ensures that a given container, vessel, microplate is in the proper location prior to its use. [0020]
Fritchie teaches that by ensuring that the radio frequency identification tag can only be read and written to in a single location, geometric location and orientation can be verified, and that the benefit of this feature is that radio frequency identification tags attached to containers holding samples, reagents, or other commodities can be read at the point of dispensing, incubating, or other processing step. [0078]
Thus, Fritchie teaches that an antenna of one or more antennas can be used to determine the location of one of the containers 14 to verify the location for purposes of conducting dispensing, incubating or some other process. Otherwise there are multiple different areas where the containers be at any given time.
Fritchie does not teach a second antenna that is movable relative to the one or more containers and, based on the movement, to communicate wirelessly with the ID tag of a container.
Gu teaches an eyedrop storage system in which an RFID antenna 6 is mounted on a drive mechanism that is controlled by a control circuit. (Fig. 2)
The driving mechanism of Gu drives the RFID antenna to move and scan the RFID chip at the bottom of the medicine bottle one by one to allow searching for individual medicine bottles. (Abstract)
It would have been obvious to modify Fritchie to include a second RFID antenna mounted a movable mechanism for movement relative to the containers for communicating wirelessly with the RIFD tags as taught by Gu for purposes of using a single RFID antenna as taught by Gu to locate individual containers.
Fritchie in view of Gu does not teach a mobile robot configured to move relative to the one or more containers.
Lammi et al. teaches a robot having gripper for moving objects and teaches that antennae 30a and 30b can be providing on the gripper and can be RFID read/write devices. (column 2, lines 44-46 and column 4, lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fritchie in view of Gu to move the second antenna using a robot means as taught by Lammi et al. for purposes of moving the second antenna for locating and verifying the location of containers.
Configuring the second antenna to communicate wirelessly with the ID tag of the container would be inherent to read the ID tag.
Using the second antenna to update one or more of: the memory on the ID tag or the control system to provide information from the memory on the ID tag, would have been obvious to confirm the locations of the containers.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that an antenna among the antennas is within communication range of the ID tag of the container.
Since Fritchie teaches that the antennas communicate with the RFID tags, the antennas are inherently within a communication range of the tags on the containers.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that one or more containers are arranged in an array; and wherein first antennas are arranged in a static array that is along the array of containers such that each container is in physical correspondence with an antenna in the static array and such that an ID tag of each container is in communication range of an antenna in the static array.
In Fritchie the containers are arrange in an array in the rack positions as shown in Fig. 4 and the antenna are arranged in a static array as shown in Fig. 5.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 4 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the information relating to the container comprises one or more of: a state of the container, calibration data for the container, identification data for the container, container manufacturer location, container expiration date, material consumed in the container, onboard stability information, assay data for the medical diagnostic test, container authenticity data, or error detection data.
Fritchie teaches that that the RFID tags are used to identify the containers and the contents of the containers. [0007].
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the medical diagnostic system is a first medical diagnostic system; and wherein the information in the memory on the ID tag is usable by a second medical diagnostic system that is separate from the first medical diagnostic system to incorporate the container into a medical diagnostic test performed by the second medical diagnostic system.
In Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. does not teach that the medical diagnostic system is a first medical diagnostic system; and wherein the information in the memory on the ID tag is usable by a second medical diagnostic system that is separate from the first medical diagnostic system to incorporate
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that information on the RFID tags regarding the contents of the containers in Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. could allow the containers to be removed and used in a number of analysis methods/systems.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 6 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7 as noted above Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites the mobile robot is configured to cause the antenna to move relative to the one or more containers and, based on the movement, to communicate wirelessly with the ID tag of the container; and wherein the control system is configured to control movement of the mobile robot.
Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. does not teach a mobile robot that is configured to move relative to the one or more containers; wherein an antenna is mounted to the mobile robot to cause the antenna to move relative to the one or more containers and, based on the movement, to communicate wirelessly with the ID tag; and wherein the control system is configured to control movement of the mobile robot.
Gu teaches that the RFID antenna 6 is mounted on a drive mechanism that is controlled by a control circuit. (Fig. 2)
The driving mechanism of Gu drives the RFID antenna to move and scan the RFID chip at the bottom of the medicine bottle one by one to allow searching for individual medicine bottles (Abstract)
Lammi et al. teaches that the functions of the gripper are carried out automatically under the control of a programmable logic and/or computer. (column 6, lines 10-12)
It would have been obvious to modify Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. to include an RFID antenna mounted to a robot for movement relative to the containers for communicating wirelessly with the RIFD tags as taught by Gu for purposes of using a single RFID antenna.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 21, as noted above Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 21 depends.
Claim 21 recites that the container comprises a cartridge configured to contain multiple vials, and wherein the ID tag is located on an outer shell of the cartridge.
Fritchie teaches a microplate 40 that is shown in Fig. 3 that includes a plurality of wells 48 and a single RFID tag 42 that is “attached to the base. In an alternative embodiment, the radio frequency identification tag can be applied to an exterior surface of the microplate. [0058].
The microplate is interpreted as being a cartridge with the wells being a multitude of vials.
Otherwise, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify Fritchie in view of Hu and Lammi et al.to include a cartridge having a plurality of vials – similar to a microplate – with an ID tag on a surface (outer shell) as taught by Fritchie.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 21 obvious.
2 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wikipedia “Multiplexer.”
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. renders claim 2 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the control system comprises: a multiplexer that is controllable to select the antenna; and a read/write module to implement reading at least some of the information from, or writing at least some of the information to, the memory on the ID tag.
Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. does not teach a multiplexer that is controllable to select the antenna; and a read/write module to implement reading at least some of the information from, or writing at least some of the information to, the memory on the ID tag.
Fritchie teaches selectively activating the antennas by means of electronics. [0060]
Multiplexers are well known for use in controlling multiple inputs to a single output as taught by Wikipedia.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fritchie in view of Gu and Lammi et al. to include a multiplexer as taught by Wikipedia to control selection of antennas use to read/write information to the RFID tags.
Therefore, Fritchie in view of Gu, Lammi et al. and Wikipedia renders claim 3 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon Lammi et al. as a new prior art reference that teaches providing an antennae on robot controlled grippers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798